Author
Topic: Crazy... go Nikon? (Read 68624 times)

I think you're missing the point. Nobody really cares how you or someone else spends his own money. At the end, it's your money, and you know better how to spend it. The point I'm trying to make is that why would someone invest into another system if Canon or third-party manufacturers have products at least as good as Nikon's or even better? Have you directly compared Nikon's 14-24 to let's say Schneider PC-TS lenses? Which exact Nikon's lens is that much better than Canon's one to justify investing into it? How much more details would D800 capture over 5diii, especially under dim light? I may be wrong but I'd think very few people make money by selling their landscape work, so only one can decide if he can justify investing into a different system.

You are missing the point that it's never the lens itself, but the lens/camera combination. I agree that if Canon had a competitive 14-24 many people would be happy with that, but still those who can would buy it along with a D800. Why? Because it's just better, and that's all that matters. A D800E captures more fine details than a 5D3 when you put a good lens in front of it. That's because of more MP, no AA filter, wider DR, less low-ISO noise, etc etc.

With lens prices going up, people want to get the max out of their investments. It's not out of stupidity that even people heavily invested in Canon glass buy a Nikon body and a few lenses too. They do so because it's more convenient. Many people with a 5D2 did so because they felt it was the best way to broaden their possibilities, since the 5D3 offers more or less the same in terms of IQ.

One very important reason why it would be very silly (being polite) for a pro to use both systems, is that if one of his/her cameras breaks down, s/he cannot use the glass of one brand on the other camera which is of another brand.

Do not forget NPS and CPS work very differently from one country to another - very different regulations, set up and benefits. They might offer a replacement while they fix the broken one, and that replacement might be free, or it might not. But regardless, by the time you get it to Canon you have missed the shot(s) you were trying to get.

For landscape photographers that may not be a problem (I do not know as I rarely shoot landscapes), but if you are at a sports event and your long camera dies leaving you with only a wide angle camera, you are going to have problems, very big problems. If, in this scenario, you have the same brand of camera you can swap and change your lenses to your hearts content if one dies. Might not be ideal to only use the backup but at least you do not miss the shots and potentially your job or rep.

Now, there may be some very rich pro that can buy every lens for every brand to cover such an eventuality, but most can't. And even if they could who is going to carry that much stuff to an event!!

I do not care if you use Nikon, Canon, Sony or a paint and brush, but using both is just asking for trouble. It makes no sense.

You must be incredibly cool to call all who shoot both systems silly.

You have made clear that you wouldn't manage to handle any camera with a different control layout, but you're making the mistake to think that it's the same for everybody. I have an iPad and an Android smartphone, and so far I didn't go crazy using both.

You're also making the mistake to think that one must have the same set of lenses on both systems, but no one said that. I have a Canon crop and Nikon FF (D600). I can assure you that I replaced the Canon 85/1.8 with the Nikon G version without any regrets - optically another world.

On top of that it costs less to buy a D600 + Nikkor 85mm than a 6D + Canon 85mm. For crop upgraders keeping their Canon crop AND adding a Nikon FF is a win-win situation.

I think I will keep shooting Canon for the long teles and I'm very interested in the upcoming crop line, but for all the rest Nikon and/or 3rd parties provide better stuff or at least a much more attractive value for money and as someone said, I'm not into feeling a hostage of a company or another.

You have made clear that you wouldn't manage to handle any camera with a different control layout, but you're making the mistake to think that it's the same for everybody. I have an iPad and an Android smartphone, and so far I didn't go crazy using both.

You're also making the mistake to think that one must have the same set of lenses on both systems, but no one said that. I have a Canon crop and Nikon FF (D600). I can assure you that I replaced the Canon 85/1.8 with the Nikon G version without any regrets - optically another world.

On top of that it costs less to buy a D600 + Nikkor 85mm than a 6D + Canon 85mm. For crop upgraders keeping their Canon crop AND adding a Nikon FF is a win-win situation.

I think I will keep shooting Canon for the long teles and I'm very interested in the upcoming crop line, but for all the rest Nikon and/or 3rd parties provide better stuff or at least a much more attractive value for money and as someone said, I'm not into feeling a hostage of a company or another.

I do not know many pros that shoot both systems for the reasons I listed, which you did not seem to understand. If you are shooting sports, then it helps to have 2 cameras, one with long reach and one with wide or shorter reach. If you are using a Canon/Nikon for long and the other brand for short and one of them fails you won't be able to use the lenses from the failed camera on the one that is still working. Which could give you an enormous problem if you are being paid or selling certain shots.

I also did not say I could not handle using two systems. I would never put myself in such a situation as it does not help me for the reason I stated above. But could using two systems (not talking your ipad or smart phone) cause problems, of course it could, especially in sports where you have to move and react quickly. Why give yourself that headache.

Just to expand that. Let's say you have to shoot a friend's wedding at the weekend, but your wide angle breaks on Thursday. You won't be able to get it repaired in time and as your wide angle Nikon lenses won't work on your Canon, then you have a problem. If you had had the same camera system, that entire scenario would have been avoided.

I do not feel I am hostage of anything. Canon gives me what I want, I rarely look at what Nikon is doing as, unlike some people here, I am very happy with the set up I have. I made a choice and I live with that.

It wasn't supposed to be funny, it was supposed to make you understand that you hardly have the right to call silly anyone who makes different choices from yours. But you failed in grasping this concept.

People - pro or not - buy what they find better suited to their needs, which might be different from yours. Apparently you can't get out of your viewpoint and understand that what works for you and satisfies you not necessarily will do the same for others, and that this doesn't make them silly as much as it doesn't make you smart.

It wasn't supposed to be funny, it was supposed to make you understand that you hardly have the right to call silly anyone who makes different choices from yours. But you failed in grasping this concept.

People - pro or not - buy what they find better suited to their needs, which might be different from yours. Apparently you can't get out of your viewpoint and understand that what works for you and satisfies you not necessarily will do the same for others, and that this doesn't make them silly as much as it doesn't make you smart.

But never mind, be happy in your little bubble.

And what will you do when one of your two cameras breaks or malfunctions or gets misplaced at an important time - such as when you're on holiday for example? Half your lenses suddenly become dead weight until you repair that broken camera.

Logged

1D X + backup + different L lenses etc.

Hobby Shooter

It wasn't supposed to be funny, it was supposed to make you understand that you hardly have the right to call silly anyone who makes different choices from yours. But you failed in grasping this concept.

People - pro or not - buy what they find better suited to their needs, which might be different from yours. Apparently you can't get out of your viewpoint and understand that what works for you and satisfies you not necessarily will do the same for others, and that this doesn't make them silly as much as it doesn't make you smart.

But never mind, be happy in your little bubble.

What's your point? (except over and over again state how much you love D800)

It wasn't supposed to be funny, it was supposed to make you understand that you hardly have the right to call silly anyone who makes different choices from yours. But you failed in grasping this concept.

People - pro or not - buy what they find better suited to their needs, which might be different from yours. Apparently you can't get out of your viewpoint and understand that what works for you and satisfies you not necessarily will do the same for others, and that this doesn't make them silly as much as it doesn't make you smart.

But never mind, be happy in your little bubble.

What's your point? (except over and over again state how much you love D800)

Why do you expect there will be a "point" in a Canon Vs. Nikon argument? The arguments are so biased on both sides that it is next to impossible

It wasn't supposed to be funny, it was supposed to make you understand that you hardly have the right to call silly anyone who makes different choices from yours. But you failed in grasping this concept.

People - pro or not - buy what they find better suited to their needs, which might be different from yours. Apparently you can't get out of your viewpoint and understand that what works for you and satisfies you not necessarily will do the same for others, and that this doesn't make them silly as much as it doesn't make you smart.

But never mind, be happy in your little bubble.

What's your point? (except over and over again state how much you love D800)

Why do you expect there will be a "point" in a Canon Vs. Nikon argument? The arguments are so biased on both sides that it is next to impossible

I'll grant you that BUT, I will also give you a serious answer. I am very happy to log on here to read and learn, sometimes I even answer to people's questions when my skills are adequate.

Many threads with for example interesting information about new releases from Canon or even other brands often start out well but soon enough are flooded with pointless arguments about (for the subject) irrelevant information clearly aimed to provoke people who are interested in discussing the actual subject.

I do hope the serious posters will stay with the forum and continue to discuss and share their knowledge anyway.

One very important reason why it would be very silly (being polite) for a pro to use both systems, is that if one of his/her cameras breaks down, s/he cannot use the glass of one brand on the other camera which is of another brand.

Do not forget NPS and CPS work very differently from one country to another - very different regulations, set up and benefits. They might offer a replacement while they fix the broken one, and that replacement might be free, or it might not. But regardless, by the time you get it to Canon you have missed the shot(s) you were trying to get.

For landscape photographers that may not be a problem (I do not know as I rarely shoot landscapes), but if you are at a sports event and your long camera dies leaving you with only a wide angle camera, you are going to have problems, very big problems. If, in this scenario, you have the same brand of camera you can swap and change your lenses to your hearts content if one dies. Might not be ideal to only use the backup but at least you do not miss the shots and potentially your job or rep.

Now, there may be some very rich pro that can buy every lens for every brand to cover such an eventuality, but most can't. And even if they could who is going to carry that much stuff to an event!!

I do not care if you use Nikon, Canon, Sony or a paint and brush, but using both is just asking for trouble. It makes no sense.

Really?... Serious sports shooting pros only have 2 cameras?..how impoverishedi shot weddings with 4 different bodies hangin' off my neck with enough overlap that if a battery happened to go dead (they never did) then i could still cover the eventSame goes for back when we had to change film.

sarcasm aside (geez that's hard to do) how often do you break your gear that this would be a problem?even if you HAD 2 of the same brand, swapping lenses is gonna cost you time and you're still gonna miss shots a bit like if you had 2 different systems.

I fail to see you making a valid point against using 2 different systems but as long as you convinced yourself into such a corner...

Really?... Serious sports shooting pros only have 2 cameras?..how impoverishedi shot weddings with 4 different bodies hangin' off my neck with enough overlap that if a battery happened to go dead (they never did) then i could still cover the eventSame goes for back when we had to change film.

sarcasm aside (geez that's hard to do) how often do you break your gear that this would be a problem?even if you HAD 2 of the same brand, swapping lenses is gonna cost you time and you're still gonna miss shots a bit like if you had 2 different systems.

I fail to see you making a valid point against using 2 different systems but as long as you convinced yourself into such a corner...

Corner, bubble....

There are guys with numerous cameras at most sporting events. If I could afford it, I would probably have three as an ideal number, as it is I have to make do with two. Some major newspapers have or use photographers that only have one camera.

You have 4 bodies. Good for you. Well done. Big cheer.

Are they all DSLRs? Are they all one brand? What are they?

Quote

sarcasm aside (geez that's hard to do) how often do you break your gear that this would be a problem?even if you HAD 2 of the same brand, swapping lenses is gonna cost you time and you're still gonna miss shots a bit like if you had 2 different systems.

Interesting question. I wonder why Canon sticks two memory cards in it systems. One reason is that you can double your memory capacity, another is so if you want you can write to both cards at the same time, just in case....

And your point about swapping lenses taking time in the case of a camera failure is really rather moot (not the word I want to use) considering that if you had two different systems you would not be able to swap lenses at all....

1) What is your point? Apart from the tired sarcasm, and just saying my opinion is totally invalid?

You have a camera shop strung around your neck while you shoot weddings, that's your choice, I see nothing wrong with that. But I would never shoot sports with more than one camera system and I do not know anyone that does. But when I am next at an international event I will check and report back to you.

I think it is silly to shoot with two systems as that means you need two sets of lenses, two menus and controls to get to grips with, and critically, mix up at the wrong moment etc.

Personally, I chose Canon and have been very happy with the results their cameras have helped me to deliver over the years.

I rarely look over the fence at what Nikon is doing, in fact I seem to have more time for Sony rumours than I do with regards to Nikon.

It does not become silly just because you "think" ... there are some people like me (although in the minority) do play with dual systems ... but once again that does not make it "silly", it only means that you "think" it is silly i.e. it is all in your head and is not real. You chose Canon for a reason, I respect that but calling others silly bcoz they don't do what you do is actually silly. Just like you "have more time for Sony rumours", some of us have the time and interest to play with dual systems.(BTW, I did read your rebuttal in a later post but whatever your reasons are, just bcoz you "think" it is silly does not make it silly ... a small secret, we all "think" many things but some of them are not real )

It does not become silly just because you "think" ... there are some people like me (although in the minority) do play with dual systems ... but once again that does not make it "silly", it only means that you "think" it is silly i.e. it is all in your head and is not real. You chose Canon for a reason, I respect that but calling others silly bcoz they don't do what you do is actually silly. Just like you "have more time for Sony rumours", some of us have the time and interest to play with dual systems.(BTW, I did read your rebuttal in a later post but whatever your reasons are, just bcoz you "think" it is silly does not make it silly ... a small secret, we all "think" many things but some of them are not real )

Are you mainly shooting international sporting events or landscapes/weddings etc?

As my first post was really pointed at the sports pro. If landscapes then of course it does not matter as much.

Perhaps I chose a wrong word, when I used the word "silly". But I still do not think it benefits the photographer (especially pro sports photographer) to have two DSLR systems each with their own lenses.

That is my opinion, and that is what forums are for. But you are right just cos I think one thing, does not make it right, or wrong. I am pleased you admitted you are in the minority - and there is a reason for that.

Added: and the reason I mentioned Sony, is I could imagine having a small camera like the RX1 in my bag with me, which would mean I too would be then using a dual system. But what it does not mean, is I would be investing in glass for that system, because I would still only use Canon for that - unless I decide to change and go to Nikon or another brand in the future. I would not invest in two different DSLR systems that require lens investments.

It does not become silly just because you "think" ... there are some people like me (although in the minority) do play with dual systems ... but once again that does not make it "silly", it only means that you "think" it is silly i.e. it is all in your head and is not real. You chose Canon for a reason, I respect that but calling others silly bcoz they don't do what you do is actually silly. Just like you "have more time for Sony rumours", some of us have the time and interest to play with dual systems.(BTW, I did read your rebuttal in a later post but whatever your reasons are, just bcoz you "think" it is silly does not make it silly ... a small secret, we all "think" many things but some of them are not real )

Are you mainly shooting international sporting events or landscapes/weddings etc?

As my first post was really pointed at the sports pro. If landscapes then of course it does not matter as much.

Perhaps I chose a wrong word, when I used the word "silly". But I still do not think it benefits the photographer (especially pro sports photographer) to have two DSLR systems each with their own lenses.

That is my opinion, and that is what forums are for. But you are right just cos I think one thing, does not make it right, or wrong. I am pleased you admitted you are in the minority - and there is a reason for that.

Added: and the reason I mentioned Sony, is I could imagine having a small camera like the RX1 in my bag with me, which would mean I too would be then using a dual system. But what it does not mean, is I would be investing in glass for that system, because I would still only use Canon for that - unless I decide to change and go to Nikon or another brand in the future. I would not invest in two different DSLR systems that require lens investments.

I do not disagree with what you are saying ... the only objection was for the "silly" comment, glad you acknowledge that it was a wrong choice of word, I suppose we are all guilty of that ... unfortunately those kind of words tend to get picked up and we receive brick bats. Although I jumped camp from Nikon to Canon a few years ago, I currently do not have any "serious" glass invested in Nikon, I only have 1 lens (18-300 VR) for my D7000 which is mainly used for everyday general purpose and vacations for its sheer convenience ... for all "serious" shoots I use the 5D MKIII and a few L lenses ... Of course I am saving up for the Nikkor 14-24 and a D800 for landscape photography (which is about a year away from happening). I like being able to play with both systems and I have a plan to teach photography when I'm 60 and retire from my current job in the oil and gas industry (which is also well over a decade away from happening ) so being able to understand and use both systems from the "big boys" is kind of important to me.

I do not disagree with what you are saying ... the only objection was for the "silly" comment, glad you acknowledge that it was a wrong choice of word, I suppose we are all guilty of that ... unfortunately those kind of words tend to get picked up and we receive brick bats. Although I jumped camp from Nikon to Canon a few years ago, I currently do not have any "serious" glass invested in Nikon, I only have 1 lens (18-300 VR) for my D7000 which is mainly used for everyday general purpose and vacations for its sheer convenience ... for all "serious" shoots I use the 5D MKIII and a few L lenses ... Of course I am saving up for the Nikkor 14-24 and a D800 for landscape photography (which is about a year away from happening). I like being able to play with both systems and I have a plan to teach photography when I'm 60 and retire from my current job in the oil and gas industry (which is also well over a decade away from happening ) so being able to understand and use both systems from the "big boys" is kind of important to me.

Sounds like a good plan. You say you are in the oil and gas industry, are you on a rig? Have known a few people that work on rigs, and it is a tough life, though I believe the pay is quite good.

I did look briefly at the Nikon D800E when it came out, and it looks like a very nice camera. Some friends have the D4 and they absolutely love it too.

It will be very interesting to see whether Nikon do bring out the D4X or whatever it is rumoured to be called, and what exactly Canon puts in the 7D Mark II.

Whichever brand, the future of photography is very bright indeed. Thanks.

I do not disagree with what you are saying ... the only objection was for the "silly" comment, glad you acknowledge that it was a wrong choice of word, I suppose we are all guilty of that ... unfortunately those kind of words tend to get picked up and we receive brick bats. Although I jumped camp from Nikon to Canon a few years ago, I currently do not have any "serious" glass invested in Nikon, I only have 1 lens (18-300 VR) for my D7000 which is mainly used for everyday general purpose and vacations for its sheer convenience ... for all "serious" shoots I use the 5D MKIII and a few L lenses ... Of course I am saving up for the Nikkor 14-24 and a D800 for landscape photography (which is about a year away from happening). I like being able to play with both systems and I have a plan to teach photography when I'm 60 and retire from my current job in the oil and gas industry (which is also well over a decade away from happening ) so being able to understand and use both systems from the "big boys" is kind of important to me.

Sounds like a good plan. You say you are in the oil and gas industry, are you on a rig? Have known a few people that work on rigs, and it is a tough life, though I believe the pay is quite good.

I did look briefly at the Nikon D800E when it came out, and it looks like a very nice camera. Some friends have the D4 and they absolutely love it too.

It will be very interesting to see whether Nikon do bring out the D4X or whatever it is rumoured to be called, and what exactly Canon puts in the 7D Mark II.

Whichever brand, the future of photography is very bright indeed. Thanks.

I am office based but do go to the rigs thrice a week.I certainly agree that the future of photography is very bright, especially with all the competition these days.